Marginalia

The Christian belief that God intended marriage to be a lifelong commitment is primarily based on Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, here shown in the fuller version recorded by Matthew:

Matthew 19      (emphasis added)

 1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

 4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh‘^[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

 7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

 11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage^[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Footnotes:

a.   Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27

b.   Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24

c.    Matthew 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs

New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 

In this passage Jesus brings together verses from Genesis 1 and 2 to create a unified interpretation of God’s intentions for the marriage relationship.  When people act in accordance with God’s will, then it is understood that God is involved in their actions, even in the act of uniting in marriage–”what God has joined together, let no man separate.”  God initiated the plan for human sexual relationships, and that plan, says Jesus, was not to be aborted for human convenience — marriage had always been intended to be permanent.  Accepting Jesus’ interpretation of Scripture is an essential part of what it means to be a Christian.  The Gospels were compiled and written so that later generations could know what Jesus taught and accomplished. 

Jesus is saying that a person sins against God’s intentions and purposes, one “commits adultery,” if one breaks the marriage bond for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness on the part of the other person.  It is possible that the other person’s unfaithfulness already broke the marriage bond in God’s sight, so the person initiating a divorce under these circumstances would not be breaking what is already broken (although presumably it would also be possible to seek healing and restoration).  This view is consistent with Paul’s instruction that only when an unbelieving partner leaves a marriage may a believer consider themself free.  But Jesus does say that initiating an improper divorce - where the other partner has not broken the marriage bond through unfaithfulness - does break the marriage bond and therefore constitutes “committing adultery.”   There are many interpretations of this passage; but whatever one’s viewpoint, it is clear that Jesus is distinguishing between the marriage bond in God’s sight and the legal right to enact a divorce in his society, where divorce was permitted on a more generous basis.  The law does not define morality, even in a society that is based on the Ten Commandments.

This passage suggests that Jesus expects the God-given sex drive to normally be satisfied, because when the disciples react that being restricted to one woman without any means of escaping the relationship (as long as she is faithful) would make it better to remain single, Jesus says that only those who are gifted for celibacy can accept the unmarried state, an approach that the Apostle Paul also taught.  This expectation of sexual activity by most people is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5, where Jesus says that those who divorce their wives for a reason other than unfaithfulness cause them to commit adultery - the assumption seems to be that they will remarry.  Only people with the capacity for celibacy have a legitimate option to choose singleness - the others are intended for marriage.  So in the very broadest sense, there are only two courses of action one can pursue to fulfill God’s intentions for human sexuality according to Jesus: celibacy and marriage.

Sometimes this passage in Matthew 19 is debunked as inauthentic because the “exception clause” allowing divorce for unfaithfulness does not appear in Mark, which was “published” earlier than Matthew.  But this claim fails to acknowledge that each Gospel selected its contents for its own purposes from a much larger assortment of sayings–Jesus said and did much more than what is recorded in the Gospels.  The Gospels were written quite close to the time of Jesus and were based on eyewitness testimony and firsthand reports preserved by groups of people who carefully perpetuated his memory by meeting together and rehearsing the details.  It is rather presumptuous for scholars to dismiss one line in a later Gospel simply because it does not appear in the earliest Gospel, especially when it is in harmony with earlier Scriptures and can be seen as consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teaching.  In this case, as we have seen, there is no contradiction between Mark and Matthew.  And it is noteworthy that Paul’s much earlier writings on this topic are consistent with the later Gospel records.

One often hears that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, as if that means he had no opinion on the subject; but in this passage he specifically taught that God designed marriage between the sexes as a social institution because God made humans sexual beings.  Jesus thereby indicates that marriage is the context in which interpersonal sexual activity should be expressed according to God’s will, and that marriage was between males and females.  Based on this foundational teaching, we can make a number of reasonable deductions, including the disapproval of homosexuality as a God-intended form of sexual expression.  We can be equally sure, however, that if there had been opportunity to encounter homosexuals in his immediate society (which was unlikely at that time) Jesus would have reached out to them, as he did to the despised tax collectors and prostitutes. 

The spirituality of Jesus dominates this passage.  His primary concern is that we align ourselves with God’s purposes. To do that we must hear from God to know what those purposes are, and Jesus viewed his role as presenting that message from God.  His objective was not to criticize or to condemn, but to construct, to build up God’s kingdom, or as he put it in a more general way, to give life.  God’s intentions for all of human life are for human prosperity, and the essence of Christian spirituality is to align oneself with God’s purposes.  It is in this broad context that we can best understand what Jesus was teaching about God’s purposes for human sexuality and how Christians should relate to others in our world, even when they are opposed to God’s ways.

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

“Marriage,” by Ralph H. Alexander

This article presents the traditional Christian view of marriage including this definition of marriage (emphasis added)–

“An intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman in which the two become one physically, in the whole of life. The purpose of marriage is to reflect the relationship of the Godhead and to serve him. Although the fall has marred the divine purpose and function of marriage, this definition reflects the God-ordained ideal for marriage from the beginning.”

This article also includes the biblical background for the expectation of a lifelong marriage relationship–

“A new permanent union (Gen 2:24). “Cleaving” in Genesis 2:24 pictures a strong bond between the members of this union. The marriage bond was to be permanent. Separation or termination of the marriage union was not an option before sin entered the world and death with it (Gen 3). All later revelation shows that separation/divorce was because of sin (Deut 24:1-4; Ezra 9-10; Mal 2:14; Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:1-16, 39). God’s ideal was for marriage to be permanent and exclusive.”

Comparison Chart: Christian Denominations’ Ethical Views

“This chart compares the similarities and differences between the views of major Christian denominations….  The summaries provided [on the chart] are believed to represent the majority view [in each denomination] and are taken from official statements where available.”

This chart and its documentation demonstrates that the major church traditions most often continue to view marriage as a lifelong commitment.   Some traditions do not offer a “definition,” which would include this element, and are more concerned with how to handle failure to reach this ideal; but this lifelong standard is the basis for their considerations.

Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

Oversimplifies the conflict to rally political support for the then upcoming Federal marriage amendment vote in Congress. This was one of several articles in the September 2004 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY focusing on this theme. The overwhelming thrust of the coverage was in support of the amendment, but like the currently proposed Pennsylvania amendment, the proposed Federal amendment did not include the concept of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.  The overwhelming support for the Federal amendment in this evangelical periodical is quite remarkable since the casual reader might be led to think it represented the ”Christian” position, when it is actually the lifelong aspect of marriage that is the unique claim of Christian ethics, not the idea of men and women entering into an ongoing relationship, which predates Christianity and is not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I wrote the following letter to the editor, which was not published as far as I know–

Although the Sept 2004 issue [CHRISTIANITY TODAY] presents a sound biblical view of marriage, it does not follow that that view should be enshrined in the US Constitution at this time, even if the residual effects of the biblical view are evident in our society.  If “by their fruits you will know them” means anything, and if the quote by Margaret Mead prominently displayed on page 44 is significant (that “there is no society in the world where people have stayed married without enormous community pressure to do so”) then Americans do NOT truly accept the biblical teaching on marriage as “the lifelong commitment of a man and woman to each other.”

If we remove the lifelong commitment aspect from the definition, we are not faithful to the biblical concept; and I believe it is not accurate to claim that the vast majority of Americans would accept this complete definition.  Removing the lifelong commitment from the definition makes this political effort an obvious attack against homosexuals who are trying to establish equivalent rights for themselves in a society where sexual behavior has been effectively separated from reproduction (which raises the question about marriage rights), and where many privileges not connected to reproduction have been granted only to those who are married, whether or not they reproduce.

Following the pattern ever since Constantine, Christian leaders seem to be attempting to make laws to Christianize everyone else rather than following the example of the earliest church and attempting to reach out to those in need–substituting political power for the power of love.  It seems to me a more constructive expression of God’s love would be to identify the social needs of the gay community and seriously seek to address how they can be met.  The risk we take with the current politicized approach is that if it is successful we can then ignore the gay community.  This is NOT a biblical approach to conflict resolution.  Yes, some Christian group somewhere will do something; but nothing like the energies of the Christian public being mobilized to pass a Constitutional amendment will be involved.  You can count on it.  So where is the love in all this?

There was a CT article by Chad W. Thompson around that time that emphasized sharing love with homosexuals on the personal level, but it did not recognize the need for love to work for structural change to meet their unique needs. It is one thing to maintain a friendship with someone you compete with, for example, on an opposing softball team; but quite another to build a meaningful relationship with someone you are trying to deprive of normal human comforts such as the right to visit their partner in the hospital or to confidently share in the financial planning and benefits commensurate with their commitment to each other–but that’s what a befriender is doing when they are also actively supporting these so-called “marriage protection” amendments. 

One of the main issues at stake in the current debate over the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is about allowing gay people in long-term intimate relationships, who come to depend on each other, to be able to count on each other’s support when they really need it.   Proposals such as this amendment, if implemented, would maliciously undermine that social need by not supporting these couples with appropriate social rights, and would thereby weaken society and not function for the general social good.  Supporting this law is malicious because, even as seen by its militant wording (“protection”), it is intended to fight against those who are trying to obtain the very rights it is specifically denying them from obtaining.  How can anyone conceive of this amendment as an expression of Christian love?